In this case, yes. It's almost the end of 2011 and Adobe still hasn't gotten Flash to be a decent plug-in for consumers. For developers, that's another story, but for consumers it's still a resource hogging, crash-prone disaster.

I was going to give him the same answer, even to the same wording in the first sentence!

Do these people have nothing better to do? Whips and chains would probably please them more. I guess a lot still make a good living off the Microsoft ecosystem, directly or indirectly, as I'm sure some of us do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenoBell

BUILD conference attendees that were yesterday handed tablets and a developer version of Windows 8 confirmed that Flash still does not run in the Internet Explorer 10 browser (see image) that came with the new OS and Samsung tablet.

Some took delight in watching frustrated peers attempt to install Flash onto their tablets.

“Just walked through press room and saw two people trying furiously to install Flash on their Win8 tablets. LOL,” wrote the editor of a series of Windows books, Jon Hassell.

Even a former Australian Microsoftie, Scott Barnes, was disappointed after attempting to revive his daughter’s EEPC with Windows 8.

“I put win8 on my eepc.. was hoping to use that as my 4yr daughters laptop for Penguinclub but..flash dont work...bah! ,” he Tweeted.

So can we expect Shantanu Narayen to issue a point by point refutation of Microsoft's statements?

It sure seems like they repeated some things from Steve Jobs' open letter, which Narayen said were "patently false".

It's too late for that. I think that he doubted that Apple would have done as well as they did, and that Flash would have been a reason for it. But the appearance of the iPad surprised everyone, and the extreme popularity of that put the nail in the coffin of Flash. The fact that we see web sites as a "full" computer does end the idea that the lack of Flash on a small device such as a phone was one thing they could do without from Apple. But the iPad is proving to be a major tide in the computer industry as a whole, and Apple's place in that can't be denied so far. Adobe just had to cave.

Now, we see MS looking at Apple's success without Flash, and has decided to save themselves from the work needed to support it, and their customers the frustration from using it. If it's working for Apple, then they figure it should work for them as well.

And no matter what Adobe may say, few phones use Flash even now. In mobile, Flash is still in the minority on devices that supposedly can manage it. And even the tablets that do have it have problems with it. Surely Adobe reads those articles and reviews. It's just giving them a black eye.

Hopefully those sites that still only push Flash video will also move on to HTML 5 instead shortly. I complain to those few financial sites that still do that, even though a number of those video reports are ironically about iOS, and its success.

Rarely do I cheer MS, but this is a step in the right direction. This could finally be the final nail in Flash's coffin.

Don't get me wrong, Flash saved the internet from falling into the clutches of Windows Media, so we should all be grateful for that, but Flash has run its course. It has been superseded by newer, better tech (HTML 5), and now it's time to move on and embrace industry standards.

I do like it when we get statements like this, "we decided not to implement this functionality to benefit our users". Coincidently it also meant we had to do less work.

In this case though I do agree. Flash IMO should only ever be used for video. Microsofts approach of having a metro ie and normal ie also means that when you do get to a video you still have the option to view it, rather than current smartphones and tablets where your just left having to switch to a pc. I wonder if a future option could be to enable plugins per instance of them on a page. E.g. When a page has a flash video you first click to enable flash on that zone and then when you navigate away flash is turned off again. That could help save battery life without limiting the device.

What I don't get though is Adobes had this issue for a while. To me the solution would be to release a browser with flash built in. Might be a bit borderline for getting past the iOS restrictions.

It's really just the opposite. Video should never be run through Flash. It used to be that they needed Flash to get the Ads in the video, and I could understand that. But that doesn't seem to be a real problem any more because I'm seeing Ads being embedded within the video itself. Perhaps that prevents more customized a service, as the Ads can't vary between regions and such. But some things have to give, and HTML 5 is working towards that as well, and Adobe will likely be the one to get it done.

Just because it doesn't come preinstalled doesn't mean it's unsupported. It'll be a plugin just like it is for Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. HTML5 doesn't hold a candle to the capabilities of Flash.

You are completely wrong here. Didn't you read the article? MS just said that it won't allow the use of plug-ins for Metro. That means no Flash, and MS is taking the same stand Apple has taken, and it's about time!

I'm willing to bet that if we poll users about Flash heavy web sites, most will say that they would just as well do without it. Most of the Flash games can be written in HTML 5 now as well, though not all yet. As for the most important use of Flash, well, it's Ads, and I doubt that even you would prefer Flash Ads to what we now get on our iPads and iPhones, assuming you have one of them.

The people who want Flash the most other than Adobe, are Flash developers, because they make their money from that. They convince customers that Flash heavy work is best. But it will no longer be, even for notebooks and the desktop as mobile takes over more browsing. If your potential customers can't see your Ads or site from their smartphones and tablets, that's bad, because more often than not, those are the people you want, and need for your customers, because they are the ones spending money on things that they don't necessarily need, but prefer.

Adobe has used Adidas's heavily Flashed site as an example of why Flash is important on tablets. But on every demo I've seen of that on a Flash tablet, it's loaded very slowly, and worked jerkily. This isn't a good Ad for Adidas. When I went to their site on my iPad, it loaded almost instantly. Yes, it didn't have all of the animations, but I could use the site. If you have Flash on your tablet, you're more likely to skip their site and go to another sneaker company because of the problems. That's bad business.

If you are telling them that you don't care if they visit your site, you are telling them that you aren't interested in them as customers, and that's really bad business.

I do like it when we get statements like this, "we decided not to implement this functionality to benefit our users". Coincidently it also meant we had to do less work.

In this case though I do agree. Flash IMO should only ever be used for video. Microsofts approach of having a metro ie and normal ie also means that when you do get to a video you still have the option to view it, rather than current smartphones and tablets where your just left having to switch to a pc. I wonder if a future option could be to enable plugins per instance of them on a page. E.g. When a page has a flash video you first click to enable flash on that zone and then when you navigate away flash is turned off again. That could help save battery life without limiting the device.

What I don't get though is Adobes had this issue for a while. To me the solution would be to release a browser with flash built in. Might be a bit borderline for getting past the iOS restrictions.

I think it's the opposite: If all you're doing is straightforward video, then Flash is the wrong way to go nowadays: Serve it up in HTML5 using H.264 by default, offer a seamless fallback to WebM for those HTML5 devices which for various reasons cannot obtain a license for the H.264 patents. (Actually I don't really care if WebM is used by default with a fallback to H.264 or vice-versa. The exact order of the fallback is irrelevant as long as it's seamless.) But only offer Flash as a last-resort fallback for "legacy" customers who for various reasons absolutely cannot upgrade to an HTML5 browser.

(If a product like Adobe's "Media Server" offers an all-in-one solution that accomplishes all three things automatically without any extra effort from the web developer, then all the better!)

Flash still has a few years more life left in it for certain classes of interactive web applications in areas where the HTML5 standards haven't solidified enough yet to offer a universally accessible ecosystem.

Think about it...MS releases Metro, which is a true innovation, unlike some others in the mobile space. MS disses flash for the same reasons Steve Jobs mentioned in his letter, and pushing the same HTML5 solution Steve Jobs did. And as we know from the trolls on this board that the only reason Apple doesnt allow flash is because of Steve Jobs's fantasies. And Steve Jobs RESIGNED from Apple!

The tablet-optimized Metro version of Internet Explorer 10 in Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8 will be a "plug-in free experience," as the company follows Apple's lead in abandoning Adobe Flash in favor of HTML5 on tablets. View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/url][/c]

And on this 15th day of September 2011, I continue to enjoy my "Microsoft-free experience". Life is good, Windows not so much...

MS didn't jettison anything. The first website you go that has flash will ask you to download it. A VAST majority will click the button and then you will have flash on the browser.

You missed what was said. On Metro, on tablets, and I assume still with WP 7 and what will come after, on their phones, MS will not support plug-ins, and so no Flash. That doesn't mean that current use precludes it, and they did say that the desktop version will still have plug-ins, as does the desktop version of Safari.

Think about it...MS releases Metro, which is a true innovation, unlike some others in the mobile space. MS disses flash for the same reasons Steve Jobs mentioned in his letter, and pushing the same HTML5 solution Steve Jobs did. And as we know from the trolls on this board that the only reason Apple doesnt allow flash is because of Steve Jobs's fantasies. And Steve Jobs RESIGNED from Apple!

You missed what was said. On Metro, on tablets, and I assume still with WP 7 and what will come after, on their phones, MS will not support plug-ins, and so no Flash. That doesn't mean that current use precludes it, and they did say that the desktop version will still have plug-ins, as does the desktop version of Safari.

What I have heard about windows 8 is that the desktop version and the mobile versions will be the same, but I must be missing something.

What I have heard about windows 8 is that the desktop version and the mobile versions will be the same, but I must be missing something.

Oh I get it now. This is from PC World

You'll still be able to view content requiring plug-ins in Windows 8, but you'll have to switch to the old fashioned Windows desktop to see it. Users who prefer to remain in the touch-centric, Metro-style interface, however, will have a plug-in free (and presumably Flash-free) experience. Instead, the new touch-centric IE 10 will rely on HTML5 technologies for online video and other functions.

You can still download and use flash, you just have to move to desktop mode temporarily. And move back when it's done.

And of course this is all to do with battery life just like Apple and absolutely nothing to do with keeping customers using their own branded app store instead of the thousands of available free flash games out there. Wink wink

In this case, I'd say yes. I can only speak for myself, but I think a lot of Apple users will agree with me that Flash should go the way of the Dodo, not because big Steve told us so, but because it sucks, plain and simple. I've been using Linux and OS X almnost exclusively for the last 15 years, and on these platforms Flash player has always been outright terrible in terms of stability, efficiency and security. On OS X things have improved in the last 2 years, shit-scared as Adobe is about losing even more mindshare among the growing group of Apple users, but it has taken them a decade to take the platform seriously. On Linux, Flash is still a steaming pile of shit, it can't even play full-screen SD video on my HTPC that plays 1080 mkv's without a hitch through XBMC. Not to mention the crashes I get in Chrome once a week or something (at least Chrome recovers gracefully from a plugin crash nowadays, but it goes to show how crappy the Flash player is). All my browsers on all my OS's have had a Flash blocker for years, except my PC at work, and I'm 100% serious if I say I see the Flash plugin crash more often on that machine, than that I unblock any Flash content on my own systems

None of this is even considering how crappy Flash runs on most mobile devices by the way, and how bad the user experience is when you try to interact with Flash content made for desktop browsers (which is almost all Flash content you will find besides the 90% of web ads).

Quote:

Originally Posted by timgriff84

In this case though I do agree. Flash IMO should only ever be used for video
[..]
But the point is that the content is in flash not html5. If everything used a standard video format then it would be fine. But we're now 4 years on from the origional iPhone and I still constantly read articles where the video is in flash.

That's an interesting statement, since personally, I think 'web video' is the only thing that is still keeping Flash alive, even though there is no reason whatsoever for end-users why you would want to have Flash video instead of HTML 5 video. Technically they are exactly the same, virtually all video content served through the Flash plugin is simply H264 inside an FLV container. The 'standard video format' you are talking about is H264, which coincidentally is also what Apple and MS see as the de-facto codec for video, for very good reasons (it's the best codec around, with the best encoders and the best hardware support). No need to wrap it in a Flash container format at all.

Think about it...ms releases metro, which is a true innovation, unlike some others in the mobile space. Ms disses flash for the same reasons steve jobs mentioned in his letter, and pushing the same html5 solution steve jobs did. And as we know from the trolls on this board that the only reason apple doesnt allow flash is because of steve jobs's fantasies. And steve jobs resigned from apple!

This is interesting or perhaps strange. On one hand, it seems like Microsoft has seen the *light* and will forsake Flash. But what of Silverlight? Regardless, Metro does not come alone. It is part of Windows 8, which will have a *standard* IE, and will presumably be plug-in-capable. Is it me or does it not sound strange that the same *tablet* will be compatible and incompatible with plug-ins, including Flash?

MSFT has always taken the kitchen sink approach, but this may be breaking new ground.

What sense would it make to use a plugin (Flash or otherwise) for the interface of a mainstream OS? You guys have lost your minds with this spin. Flash still works with Windows. I even installed it last night and it works great.

This is interesting or perhaps strange. On one hand, it seems like Microsoft has seen the *light* and will forsake Flash. But what of Silverlight? Regardless, Metro does not come alone. It is part of Windows 8, which will have a *standard* IE, and will presumably be plug-in-capable. Is it me or does it not sound strange that the same *tablet* will be compatible and incompatible with plug-ins, including Flash?

MSFT has always taken the kitchen sink approach, but this may be breaking new ground.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Will the METRO version of the tablet computers also have a desktop option. If this is true, then they continue the kitchen sink approach.

But many are speculating that it is simply not possible and the tablets will have to dump desktop option. MS is mum on this point so far. But I think they will eventually have the "kitchen sink" approach but warn you about battery consumption when you move to desktop mode.

The reason I think I may be wrong about the kitchen sink theory is this quote from Windows chief Steven Sinofsky

Were not going to port the installed base of x86 applications to ARM. They dont take advantage of the things that make ARM a great architecture, he said, referring to the power-efficiency of ARM-based processors in mobile devices such as tablets."

Regardless, I like METRO and will be following the progress. I doubt they will be as good as iOS, but they got my interest.

GMail's security features (specifically their two step mobile authentication) are second to none. Unless Apple can match this, I won't even bother trying MobileMe or iCloud.

Apple needs to learn that it is no longer sufficient to protect something as important as an email account with only a password.

Are you back again with that weird statement about Google's "second to none security features". What does that even mean, and how does it make any of Google's services so much more secure?

As far as I know, Google uses passwords just like iCloud and MobileMe, and if someone gets your password, you are screwed. Trying to decide what you are actually talking about, the only thing I can come up with is the 2-step password reset feature that Google offers, but I fail to see how this makes Google Web services so much more secure than anything else, since it would simply mean someone hacking you would need access to your cell phone, instead of access to your e-mail account. Either way you are f*d, and realistically, someone who wants to hack your account, would simply try to fish for your password anyway.

Unless I'm missing something, the weakest link with Google services is the same one that every other web/cloud system has: the passwords.

To date, I can remember some GMail hacks, but I've never heard anything about mobileme or .Mac getting hacked in any way. You really look like a shill posting this same hollow and unsubstantiated statement about Google security over and over again.

People that believe HTML 5 is magically more efficient or somehow better than flash or any other graphics intense web framework are in for a dose of reality here in a few years.

1) Of course flash takes more battery and CPU than a static image. It's doing work! HTML animations are actually LESS CPU and power efficient. Uninformed people equate the lack of animations in HTML in most web sites to "better" performance. The truth is, there are simply fewer options for animations in HTML, so developers of HTML produce less complex content, which results in less CPU usage.

When HTML 5 becomes the standard graphics package, you'll find that your device uses MORE CPU and battery than it did with flash. Flash is a compiled language like Java, and HTML 5 is an interpreted script. That means more work for an equivalent task.

2) Today you block ads by simply blocking flash. You truly believe all of those ad companies aren't going to produce badly written HTML 5 banners that eat CPU? And guess what, you can't block them!

3) All of HTML 5 rhetoric today is a bunch of hot air. The truth is there are currently ZERO products that are produced in HTML 5. Why? Because the development and maintenance of a cross browser solution for HTML 5 is a nightmare. Most of the common browsers that do support HTML 5 aren't anywhere near compatible with a single code base. This will change over time, but the truth is that currently HTML 5 is still in it's infancy.

4) Contrary to the common rhetoric, video producers HATE HTML 5 video. Why? Because there are NO reporting tools that come close to Flash Media servers metrics for reporting, or flash players intelligent buffering. HTML 5 uses MORE bandwidth and provides LESS feedback to the provider. That's why all these video sites still default to the flash player option.

5) Video is not the only thing HTML 5 and flash provide. In fact, it's only one tiny thing amongst a vast library of important features. Most of those features have been used only in flash for enterprise applications for many years. The general public is only now getting a taste of these features through sites like Google docs (offline apps, push data, etc). The truth is that Flash provides vastly more advanced implementations of these features TODAY. Most of the newest browsers only support a subset of the much more meagerly portioned features in HTML 5. Even if every browser supported every HTML 5 feature, there are still huge gaps in functionality that flash in the enterprise has enjoyed for over 7 years.

6) The reason flash is perceived as "bad" is that it's easy for an inexperienced developer to produce and publish anything on the flash platorm. Meanwhile a language like C++ requires a skilled developer just to get basic functionality out the door, so of course a skilled developer will produce efficient code as well.

A well written flash/flex app is one of the most enjoyable experiences the web has to offer. It's just a shame that the general public never sees them, because they are mostly in enterprise and big government solutions. The general public sees only the rushed banner ads, and little games.

7) Steve Jobs is a master of the red herring argument. The truth is that Flash runs very well on iOS. Many of the top games and business apps in the App store today are written in flash! And they're indistinguishable from native apps. Steve recognized before the iPhone was produced, that the mobile app store was going to be a huge revenue source. The problem with flash in the browser was that it could be used to by pass the App store to deliver apps to users. Thus a "loss" of revenue for Apple.

8) use your mobile device and google HTML 5 charts. Visit any one of the top links to see some HTML 5 charts. Reply to this post with your experience. Hint: it's going to be terrible.

The article takes the anti-Flash angle, but not supporting plug-ins, period is a big deal. That also means no Skype plug-in or any other plug-ins. Not that IE was ever great with plug-ins; they had some basic functionality, but I don't think they ever really took it to the level of Firefox's Add-on extensibility, did they?

MS has been wanting to dump Flash for years; Apple gave them the excuse to do it. They sought to replace Flash with Sliverlight, which I assume will continue to be supported as an OS-level install.

7) Steve Jobs is a master of the red herring argument. The truth is that Flash runs very well on iOS. Many of the top games and business apps in the App store today are written in flash! And they're indistinguishable from native apps. Steve recognized before the iPhone was produced, that the mobile app store was going to be a huge revenue source. The problem with flash in the browser was that it could be used to by pass the App store to deliver apps to users. Thus a "loss" of revenue for Apple.

Are you back again with that weird statement about Google's "second to none security features". What does that even mean, and how does it make any of Google's services so much more secure?

As far as I know, Google uses passwords just like iCloud and MobileMe, and if someone gets your password, you are screwed. Trying to decide what you are actually talking about, the only thing I can come up with is the 2-step password reset feature that Google offers, but I fail to see how this makes Google Web services so much more secure than anything else, since it would simply mean someone hacking you would need access to your cell phone, instead of access to your e-mail account. Either way you are f*d, and realistically, someone who wants to hack your account, would simply try to fish for your password anyway.

Unless I'm missing something, the weakest link with Google services is the same one that every other web/cloud system has: the passwords.

To date, I can remember some GMail hacks, but I've never heard anything about mobileme or .Mac getting hacked in any way. You really look like a shill posting this same hollow and unsubstantiated statement about Google security over and over again.

I don't think you understand the system. To log in on a new PC, you need to know my password AND also have access to my phone. Having just one of those things will not give you access to my account, because the code sent to the phone is not a replacement for the password, it is used in addition to it.

If you knew my password and tried to log in to my account, you'd be prompted for a code that is sent to my phone. Likewise, if you had my phone you would need my password to get to the point where it sends an authentication code to the phone.

It's not a complicated system at all, but it means that my account is so much more secure than a MobileMe or Hotmail account.

7) Steve Jobs is a master of the red herring argument. The truth is that Flash runs very well on iOS. Many of the top games and business apps in the App store today are written in flash! And they're indistinguishable from native apps. Steve recognized before the iPhone was produced, that the mobile app store was going to be a huge revenue source. The problem with flash in the browser was that it could be used to by pass the App store to deliver apps to users. Thus a "loss" of revenue for Apple.

I'm not an iOS developer, but my understanding is that Flash can compile the app into a native format, so that it's not actually running Flash.

I don't think you understand the system. To log in on a new PC, you need to know my password AND also have access to my phone. Having just one of those things will not give you access to my account, because the code sent to the phone is not a replacement for the password, it is used in addition to it.

If you knew my password and tried to log in to my account, you'd be prompted for a code that is sent to my phone. Likewise, if you had my phone you would need my password to get to the point where it sends an authentication code to the phone.

It's not a complicated system at all, but it means that my account is so much more secure than a MobileMe or Hotmail account.

Is that extra security something that you have to enable? It does not behave like that for me - I can get in with just email address and password from any machine - or at least all that I have tried. It has never asked for a code.

Is that extra security something that you have to enable? It does not behave like that for me - I can get in with just email address and password from any machine - or at least all that I have tried. It has never asked for a code.

Is that extra security something that you have to enable? It does not behave like that for me - I can get in with just email address and password from any machine - or at least all that I have tried. It has never asked for a code.

EDIT: OK - found it. It is an optional extra functionality.

If you have an Android or Apple phone, you can get an app that will generate the code for you. If you don't have one of these phones they can send the code to you by text message (even for those not in the USA) or call your phone and an automated voice will read the code to you.

It's a very impressive system (I especially liked the QR Codes used during setup!) and it really does "just work". I've never had any problems receiving the codes or logging in.

At the very least, it reduces the risk of your account being brute forced to almost 0.

Microsoft invested significant time researching the decision. The IE team examined the top 97,000 sites around the world, determining that, of the 62 percent of those sites that use Flash, many of them already have an HTML5 option as well. Beyond Flash, other plug-ins were rare, with the next most common one used on just 2 percent of sites examined.

I wonder what percent of websites require Silverlight. We know it is less than 2%. Plug-ins may be out but I wouldn't be surprised if Silverlight is 'quietly' baked into the browser.

The tablet-optimized Metro version of Internet Explorer 10 in Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8 will be a "plug-in free experience," as the company follows Apple's lead in abandoning Adobe Flash in favor of HTML5 on tablets.

Microsoft revealed Wednesday on its Building Windows 8 blog that the Metro version of IE10 will drop plug-ins because the experience that they provide is "not a good match with Metro style browsing and the modern HTML5 web." The company will, however, continue to support Adobe Flash and other plug-ins on the desktop version of Internet Explorer 10.

Metro is Microsoft's name for the custom interface and touch layer for tablet devices built into Windows 8 . The Redmond, Wash., software company offered up details on Windows 8 at its Build conference in Southern California this week, providing developers with a "pre-beta" version loaded on a Intel Core i5-powered Samsung tablet.

IE team lead Dean Hachamovitch wrote in the post that going plug-in free in for the Metro version of IE10 "improves battery life as well as security, reliability and privacy for consumers."

"Plug-ins were important early on in the webs history. But the web has come a long way since then with HTML5. Providing compatibility with legacy plug-in technologies would detract from, rather than improve, the consumer experience of browsing in the Metro style UI," he noted.

Microsoft invested significant time researching the decision. The IE team examined the top 97,000 sites around the world, determining that, of the 62 percent of those sites that use Flash, many of them already have an HTML5 option as well. Beyond Flash, other plug-ins were rare, with the next most common one used on just 2 percent of sites examined.

"Most sites work fine in IE without plug-ins; others work fine in IE when IE identifies itself as another browser or runs the site in a different mode," Hachamovitch noted, adding that users can tap a "Use Desktop View" button from the Metro style app to view sites that require Microsoft's own legacy ActiveX controls.

For its part, Apple has made known its commitment to open web standards over proprietary technologies. "Every new Apple mobile device and every new Mac along with the latest version of Apples Safari web browser supports web standards including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. These web standards are open, reliable, highly secure, and efficient," the company's page on HTML5 reads.

Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs criticized Flash last year after receiving numerous complaints about the technology's incompatibility with iOS. He presented six points condemning Flash -- openness; the "full Web;" reliability, security and performance; battery life; touch; and the substandard quality of third-party development tools.

Adobe appears to be gradually conceding ground to HTML5. Last week, the company announced support for HTML5 video in an upcoming version of its Flash Media Server product. Though Adobe billed the added feature as being able to "deliver Flash technology to Apple iPhone and iPad devices," the tool simply adds the ability to serve standards-based HTML5 video.

But, Apple has also relinquished some control over the iOS platform with respect to Flash. Last fall, the iPad maker removed its ban on third-party development tools, paving the way for Adobe to release tools that create iOS-friendly versions of Flash applications.

It's really just the opposite. Video should never be run through Flash.

To clarify when I say "Flash should only be used for Video", I don't mean Video should always be in Flash. Just that I can't see any use for Flash other than delivering video to a browser that doesn't support HTML5 video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent

This is interesting or perhaps strange. On one hand, it seems like Microsoft has seen the *light* and will forsake Flash. But what of Silverlight?

Well Microsoft has always had the view that Silverlight should be used only when you want some functionality not offered through HTML. e.g. On MS Skydrive silverlight is used so you can drag and drop files from your machine into a skydrive folder.

I imagine like Apple, part of the reason is they want users to download apps rather than have links to websites. So Silverlights still there it's just in app form, like it is on WP7.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Will the METRO version of the tablet computers also have a desktop option. If this is true, then they continue the kitchen sink approach.

But many are speculating that it is simply not possible and the tablets will have to dump desktop option. MS is mum on this point so far. But I think they will eventually have the "kitchen sink" approach but warn you about battery consumption when you move to desktop mode.

I don't think they have been mum. I believe they have made it crystal clear is that METRO is part of Windows 8 but will not be standalone. True, some have questioned the feasibility of this. And I agree with the doubters. IPad uses 512MB of RAM. Windows 8 will need ≥ 4GB. That does not sound like a tablet that can compete with iPad on price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevetim

The reason I think I may be wrong about the kitchen sink theory is this quote from Windows chief Steven Sinofsky

“We’re not going to port the installed base of x86 applications to ARM. They don’t take advantage of the things that make ARM a great architecture,” he said, referring to the power-efficiency of ARM-based processors in mobile devices such as tablets."

I don't see this being related to whether METRO will or can stand alone. Remember that what they demo'ing regularly right now is Windows 8, with METRO as a feature, and not METRO as a product on its own. That has been very, very consistent.